tv [untitled] November 24, 2010 9:30pm-10:00pm PST
i think it would be such a huge change we shouldn't impose that quickly as part of an interim program. it's something that if we want to pursue that, we should pursue that with our wholesale customers and make sure that when we do it, we do it well. and i don't think we can do that quickly. so that's the second. the third is that the options available to us, none of them are great. the one that i am leaning toward, frankly, is the one based on projections. and the reason for that is it seems to require less reasoning than some of the other options. and to the extent there is incentive value in this, it puts everybody in the same boat and makes everybody equally incentivized to try to do
better than they are currently projecting they will do. so that's just kind of a head's up where my mind is heading on that. the last point is that we spent a little bit of time talking about the structure of a surcharge. we have more time to deal with that. that's a decision that's a spring rate setting decision, not a december interim allocation decision. and i would encourage staff to try to support ways that would remove some of the odd side effect of any implementation scheme. and either -- we talked about how something might affect one wholesale customer or another and there were some things that were pretty bizarre. and i think even with the one based on projections is less bizarre, and there are less of
those. but there are some things that can happen that would be pretty unusual. for example, you could be using less than your supply guarantee and paying a surcharge, where somebody else was using more than their supply guarantee but less of their interim allocation and not paying a surcharge. and that just seems kind of wrong. so i would hope that staff can take a look at ways of structuring and implementing the surcharge that could deal with whatever anomalies come out of whatever interim allocations we develop and use that as kind of a safety valve for that process. and fortunately we have time to do that. so thank you for your tolerance. but those are the four things i wish i had said last meeting. poip thank you for your thoughts on that and digging in deep and i think it's helpful and we talked a little bit about it offline and i think some of it makes a lot of good
sense. i was the one sort of driving a wit of the per capita question and i don't want to let it go completely, but i understand the time and the clock is ticking on this and in december there's a decision coming and i think it's a complex issue and it's going to be hard to create a formula where one size fits all especially around the per capita. so, you know, i see the sense in that and also the projection strategy. i still think it's complicated getting my head around all this i.s.a. stuff. but i do think for 2018 that looking at the per capita and the incentivizing, maybe that's the bigger question, to continue to incentivize from a conservation perspective, not just from these other perspectives of rates or of, you know, actual water usage or actual water needs but from a conservation perspective, from the debater -- greater good, if that's still out there and getting that from a per capita
perspective or something else, i want to make sure that's part of the conversation. and that's all of my thoughts on that. any other thoughts on the i.s.a. because we're going to be seeing this at our next -- >> we'll bring it back december 14 and i think we'll bring back certainly the proposal for the supply allocation and probably some new thoughts on the environmental enhancement surcharge so we can think about that some more because you're right, we don't actually adopt that rate process until the spring. voif great. thank you. any public comment on the general manager's report? hearing none, item number 8, i understand mr. jensen is not with us today. >> that's correct. he's out of town so there will be no bawsca update. the next item is number 9, the consent calendar, all matters listed here under the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and acted upon a single vote of the commission. item 8, approve amendment
number 4 to water enterprise national resources funding agreement c.s. 672-b, alameda watershed habitat conservation plan and also as a general manager of san francisco public utilities to execute this amendment increasing the agreement with the time extension. the approved amendment number 3, the whites water enterprise massive funded agreement, cs 748-b, planning and entering services, sewer system master plan and authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to increase the agreement with the time extension. c, approve modification number eight to water enterprise improvement program funded contract hh 914-r, roselle crossover improvements to increase the contract amount and increase the allowance for the completion of the work. d, approve modification number one, water enterprise funded contract 2604 c.d.d. 2010-2011
paving contract, increasing the contract duration. the original contract term utilized only 16% of the contract value. this modification would allow the city to realize cost savings by not utilizing resources for rebidding contracts that has available capacity. e, authorize the general manager to negotiate an interim contract amount not to exceed $1,747,000 and held responsible in responsible bidder cal state constructors inc.or contractor for water imprusme contract wd 2625 hunter's point rehabilitation and seismic upgrade. president vietor: thank you very much. any commissioner wish to move an item from the consent calendar? is there a motion, then, to adopt the consent calendar? >> madam president, i'll move ambings a through c -- e.
president vietor: is there a second? >> second. president vietor: any public comment on the consent calendar? all those in favor of adopting the consent calendar? aye. president vietor: opposed? next item mr. housh. >> item 10, discussion of possible action to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute amendment number 1 to memorandum of agreement with the association of bay area governments for support services from regional water quality control board, increasing the amount and extending its duration. >> commissioner's if i might suggest we read 11 since it's similar. president vietor: please go head, mr. secretary. >> item 11, discussion to authorize the general manager of san francisco public utilities commission to execute amendment 1 to memorandum of agreement with the california department of fish and game for support services, increasing the amount and tending duration to three years and six months to a term limit of june 2014 to
provide priority review of water system improvement program, permit applications and related documents and expedited issuance of permits. >> hello, mrs. tori. i want to ask the commissioners if they have any questions on these items or if they'd like to hear words from her. if not, i'll entertain a motion. >> i think the items are very clear and consize. so i think i'd like to move the two, 10 and 11. president vietor: is there a second? >> second. president vietor: any public comment on these two items? hearing none, all those in favor of adopting 11 and 12? >> aye. president vietor: i'm sorry, 10 and 11. >> 10 and 11. >> aye. >> aye. president vietor: thank you very much. motion carries. next item. >> madam president, item 12, presentation and execution of executive summary of community benefits report and draft resolution adopting the community benefits policy to
provide the framework to develop agency wide community benefits program. seeking commission and community input regarding the draft report and policy and will be available before these items are presented to the commission for adoption. president vietor: thank you. this is an exciting moment to be hearing about this big project and where we are with it. welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm from the p.c. staff and am here to provide an update on our progress in developing a community benefits program and to present the executive summary of our consultant's final report as well as to introduce our initial draft of community benefits policy to you and the community for feedback before we return to you in a month for adoption of a policy that will incorporate this feedback. real quickly, i'd like to thank our consultants judy and darryl
as well as chris iglesias and the many staff members who have contributed to this effort from kelly all the way to danielle fitz to juliet ellis and general manager. i'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the commission for your direction and most importantly, our community leaders for all their contributions and direction on this project. this is really a team effort putting this together. first, i'd like to provide you an overview of our progress so an overview of our progress so far. in december of 2009, this commission directed staff to develop a community benefits policy. we retained san francisco consultants meriweather and williams and davids and associates communications to work with us to assess our existing community benefits initiative, research national best practices for community benefits initiative in other metropolitan areas and make recommendations regarding a comprehensive community
benefits program. our consultants and staff interest viewed more than -- interviewed more than 30 internal and external stakeholders, did individual interviews, focus groups, a project website and comprehensive survey. we received incredibly valuable input through the community through meetings with groups such as the southeast jobs coalition and are grateful for their leadership and guidance. we have regularly updated this commission and made presentations to the commission on april 27 and september 14 of this year when the consultants presented their initial findings and a definition of community benefits in order to receive commission and community feedback and direction. we placed everything online and sought feedback and having incorporated the wonderful feedback we received from this commission and the community into our policy. at the direction of supervisor maxwell, the board of supervisors, land use and economic development committee also held a hearing regarding
the status of our community benefits program on october 18. our consultants have drafted an executive summary of their final report for the commission and -- skipping -- -- our consultants, to date have preempted a cat lag of more than 80 community benefits initiatives already in existence at the pmpt u.c. -- p.u.c. based on their review of our programs, extensive stakeholder input, and research of other metropolitan areas, the key findings of the consultant's report that were provided to you are that there's no one comment or universal definition of community benefits, that most programs which would be considered community benefits are decentralized, lack coordination and are duplicative. that resources are not
sufficiently allocated to effect live establish a sustainable and robust program. that most programs do not clearly articulate a community approach as the prior agency's commission and there are no measures to measure effectiveness or impact. we worked closely with the consultants to prepare recommendations detailed in their executive summary. the draft community benefits policy that we're presenting to you today is based on these key recommendations. the policy lays the framework for the development of a comprehensive community benefits program that is intentional and centrally coordinated throughout the agency. the policy provides sufficient resources should be allocated to the development and sustainability of the program, that stakeholder involvement should underpin all of our activities, that the clear metrics, lines of accountability, an process for monitoring evaluation and reporting be developed, and that the community benefits program should be tailored to
the needs of our diverse and varied stakeholder communities. the policy also incorporates the definition of community benefits that has been presented to you before which adopts the triple bottom line and states the suprc defines community benefits as those positive community impacts resulting from the fspuc's developments and operations of its water, wastewater and power service. it seeks to be a good neighbor by those affected by its activities and promote sustainability by the option of a triple bottom line which pals the economic, environmental and social equity goals. the policy states the p.u.c. will devote sufficient resource and authority to achieve outcomes, including stakeholder and community involvement, work force development, environmental programs and policies, economic development, arts and culture, educational
initiative, land use, diversity and inclusion, p in kind contributions and volunteerism and community help. in applying the policy to p.u.c.'s operations, projects and activities, the policy states that staff will develop processes to effectively engage stakeholders and communities in all sfpuc service areas, develop and update a budget and staffing plan to implement and sustain a community benefits program, development an implementation strategy to review, analyze and coordinate community initiatives and integrate these initiatives into an agency wide benefits program. develop and implement guidelines and methodologies for existing and future community benefits initiatives. develop diverse and culturally competent out communication strategies to ensure stakeholders can participate in decisions and actions that may impact their communities, develop performance measures to
evaluate the community programs and report the results and develop new and continue to implement existing initiatives and avoid or eliminate disproportionate impacts of sfpuc decisions in all service areas. finally to provide you with the next steps of our process, the board of supervisors will introduce resolutions commending sfpuc's benefits program at the full board today. supervisor maxwell requested a follow-up hearing at the land use and economic development committee on december 6. our consultants will finalize their community benefits report based on final input from commissioners, staff, and the community. we welcome your input on the policy and as promised will provide the community with a month to provide us their feedback before we return to you with a final policy that incorporates the communities and your input for adoption of the final community benefits policy.
we'll then develop a community benefits program and begin to implement, monitor and evaluate the program. and with that, i thank you and welcome any initial feedback or questions you may have. president vietor: thank you very much. it's informative, it's an excellent document, excellent draft and thank you for your hard work and team effort. commissioners, are there questions, comments on the policy, on the presentation? i actually have a couple of little small editions we'd love for you to bring back to your team and integrate in some form or fashion. on item 3, environmental policies which preserve and expand clean and renewable energy, water resources, i'd love inserted after that, decrease pollution, reduce environmental impacts, and then continue on. and reward proposals for innovative and creative new environmental programs. and then one last item, bullet,
i guess it would be, would be to reference and integrate the sfpuc environmental justice policy as a directive to staff but just to have that somewhere in here i think makes sense. that's it for me. >> thank you. president vietor: is there any public comment on this item? an informational item so there's no action being taken at this time, but if the public would like to speak, now is the time. >> madam president, if i may? what is the procedure by which we will receive your -- president vietor: well, i imagine that when it comes back before us for adoption, that the amendments will either be included or in a separate
document to be added in this amendment. sorry. it's probably on that. when are we adopting this? >> well, we said a month. and so that probably puts us into the beginning of january because there was no meeting, the second meeting of december has been canceled. so probably the first meeting of january is the date. president vietor: great. thank you. welcome. >> commissioners, i'm terry anders of anders anders foundation and part of the southeast job coalition. i was able to read some of the draft, and i like some of what is in there, but there is a question that i kept finding as i was looking through this, and there was no community involvement as far as setting at the table. and what i mean by community involvement, i'm talking about the c.b.o.'s from the various neighborhoods, neighborhoods
throughout the city. i saw you had some people that was part of your team that you felt represented the community, but it was not the communicate by -- not the community. and same goes for monitoring. i find it really difficult for the p.u.c. to monitor their own projects. i would like to see community involvement as far as monitors, and i've spoken on the subject in the past. a good illustration is your p.u.c. tower right there on golden gate. that's being monitored by p.u.c. and not by a c.b.o. that's in the fillmore. that's the fillmore project. i would love to see the transparency or how many people are working on that project as local hire and from fillmore
and other disadvantaged neighborhoods. so in all fairness, the transparency is that we need to have a serious effort dealing with community participation and not just one or two people that supposedly represent various communities. there's a lot of stakeholders in san francisco that would love to have the opportunity to be part of this process. and whenever that there is a lack of transparency about who is representing who, i question that. and there's too much money involved here. i'd like the opportunity as far as the local hiring goes, but we still need to be setting at the table. whenever someone is not setting there at the table, there is a tendency for the process itself to be glossed over. so i would question to have more community participation, especially when it comes to monitoring the jobs and making certain that different
communities are actually sitting at the table to deal with the discussions that come up with the draft. thank you. president vietor: thank you very much for your comments. >> again, commissioners, joshua arsay with brightline. i want to echo the statements of my friend terry anders of anders and anders. it's getting close to a year since i think the process was initiated. it was december 9 when commissioner ellis and the commission had a hearing about how to have a plan to lead to this day. so it's really exciting, commissioner torres, we went through all the opportunities and all the scale of investments that ratepayers are making and the communicate to get all sorts of community benefits around work and environmental impact mitigation and through the presentation here from masud and the work of your very skilled consultants,
bernita davis and i think you had your whole staff participate as a comprehensive process with arlen, tommy, carolyn and your ever steady general manager harrington. we've seen him at all kinds of hearings. the board of supervisors, almost three or four hearings, including land use yesterday was another hearing. this is really a product of a really tremendous process. some of the highlights -- and i actually didn't check to see if the executive summary included an idea that came up that supervisor sophie maxwell had really locked on to which was that when community benefits are allocated out of projects costs and project investments, that the portion that's going to go in the community benefits would be allocated pursuant to a fund that c.b.o.'s and nonprofits apply to with their projects and proposals they kind of r.f.p. into. this is something we saw with the south market stabilization fund which was the community
benefits package that came out of the rincon center i want to say supervisor chris daly allocated. and they went in and made the proposals and was graded by an independent panel which a lot of the speakers are talking about today which is transparency. you want to reward -- create a really good community partnerships that will give you outcome-based results. that is something that's really promising about this. and like i said, i didn't get to see that idea of kind of a community benefits fund in which everyone comes together with their proposals about how to move community benefits happen. that's how you'll get maximum transparency. i know that's something supervisor maxwell really, really liked. just a quick update. i confirmed and went downstairs the mandatory local hiring amendments that were provided by an array of stakeholders including partners from labor, on the contracting communities, the city departments and community folks were introduced by supervisor avalos not that
long ago and supervisor sophie maxwell stood up right after and thanked supervisor avalos for his leadership on this. and i think as someone who has seen him doing this the past year and a half is really amazing. a lot of it, to be honest with you, flows from work that began here december 9, last year, to get mandatory local hiring on your projects. thanks. president vietor: thank you. thanks for coming. >> my name is mindy, a senior job developer of anders and anders. i'm here today to tell you that training works. we need a largers percentage of the clients i represent that include ex-offenders, people from low incomes and disadvantaged zip codes to act as training. training then gives them access to really construction careers where they can get benefits and
move up from apprentices to journey. so i'm hoping that you will consider a training program that can help my clients who are in constant need of having to go to get skills. they don't have skills, they don't have access to skills. there are certain programs where it's limited, and i need there to be a larger percentage of my clients being able to access training. thank you. president vietor: thank you for your comments. any other public comments on this item? thank you again for your hard work on this. and we look forward to a version incorporating these further thoughts and comments. thank you very much. next item, please. >> madam president the next item is the closed session. the commission will entertain a motion to move into closed session on the listed items. adam president if you would
call for any public comment on any of the closed session items and then entertain a motion to invoke the attorney-client privilege. president vietor: is there any public comment on any of the closed session items? >> commissioners, my people are packing up. we should note tomorrow is one of the furlough days for the city, so the p.u.c. will be on a skeleton crew tomorrow and thursday and friday are vacation days but if you recall, when the additional 12 days of furloughs were given to city staff it included the one to report thanksgiving and the one between christmas and new year's so tomorrow is the first of those official furlough days if someone is accessing our services. president vietor: let's hope everything goes smoothly. >> has there been a motion? president vietor: no, there has not. may i hear a motion, please, to assert attorney-client privilege and go into closed session? >> so moved. >> second. president vietor: all those in favor? >> aye. president vietor: opposed? >> if you'll give me a moment to read these items we will retire into closed session. president vietor: thank you.
>> item 15, threat to public facilities are facilities, pursuant to chief of security. item 16, conference for legal counsel, anticipated legalation. item 17, conference of legal counsel, existing litigation. jay martin et al. 2170 folsom, l.l.c. san francisco's superior court number 436930, 18 conference of legal counsel existing litigation. california separate insurance from michelle acevedo claim 09876 filed january 13 and item 19, conference of legal counsel existing litigation, city and county of san francisco v national union insurance company et al, c.v., si united states district court, northern district of california. we will now go into closed session at 4:02 p.m.
>> we're back in open session. president vietor: great. thank you. there was no action on agenda items 15 and 16 and agenda items 17-19 were settled. and i will entertain a motion to not disclose the discussion held in closed session. >> motion. >> second. president vietor: all those in favor? >> aye. president vietor: opposed? thank you. >> madam president, is there any new business the commissioners might want to propose at this point before we move to adjournment? president vietor: any new business? nothing. >> happy thanksgiving to everyone. president vietor: happy thanksgiving is right. thank you very much. the meeting is adjourned at 4:30 on the nose.